Why I don't vote, why you shouldn't either, and what would change my mind

I used to think that voting was a patriotic thing to do. It was a way of standing up and being counted. But at some point I started to become cynical. It occurred to me that choosing between the lesser of two evils isn’t really much of a choice at all and upon closer inspection, it seemed that in every election I was interested in, the will of the voters was ignored. Candidates were getting elected with the support of only 1/3rd of the electorate who cast ballots.

I was shocked and saddened. How could something that’s designed to serve the public’s will fail so spectacularly at doing so?

I came to believe the system is broken and by voting, I was giving it tacit approval. I was helping prop up a broken system and robbing my fellow citizens of a true democratic choice by supporting this system. I could no longer, in good conscious, vote.

The problem is that elections in Alberta do not serve the public’s will. Consider the 2008 election in the Edmonton Manning riding, where Progressive Conservative Peter Sandhu defeated independent incumbent Dan Backs.

Sandhu was elected with 35.79 per cent of the vote, which means just under two thirds of the population of Edmonton Manning who voted had a MLA that they didn’t want. It gets even crazier if you look at actual turnout. Only 36.74 per cent of eligible voters turned out. That means that only 13.15 per cent of voters in Edmonton Manning voted for Sandhu and yet he was the winner! The will of the majority was not served, but the will of the plurality was.

How did this happen?

The system used to determine a winner, plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post, works well when there are only two choices. A yes or no vote for instance, will have a clear majority provided the result is not a tie. However when a third choice is included, a majority is not needed to win. Only 33.4 per cent of the vote could be enough to win. Add a fourth option and the barrier is lowered to 25.1 per cent. In both cases the will of the majority is not served and the results end up with a winner that the majority does not support.

To think of it another way, here’s music reporter Robert Hilburn on the plurality system and how it’s used to decide the Grammys.

“Looking over previous Grammy contests, it’s easy to see where strong albums may have drawn enough votes from each other to let a compromise choice win. In 1985, two of the great albums of the decade – Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” and Prince’s “Purple Rain” – went head to head in the best album category, allowing Lionel Richie’s far less memorable “Can’t slow down” to get more votes.”

If this system can easily rob Prince or Springsteen of a Grammy, why are we using it to determine our MLAs?

I think voting could and should be an important part of the political process. And I would happily vote again, if the system were fixed. So how do we fix it?

I submit that there are three systems much better suited for our elections – Borda counts, Condorcet systems and approval voting.

Borda count

Jean-Charles de Borda was a French mathematician and the late 1700s. He saw the problem with the plurality system, and proposed a viable alternative.

A Borda count takes into consideration the entire range of preference each voter has for each of the candidates. It is more of a consensus method and would prevent a situation in which a candidate with only 35 per cent support is elected. It is no more difficult than the ballot used now, and would in fact give a more accurate result, since the winners will be tabulated by computer.

Each voter ranks all the candidates from most desirable to least desirable. So in an election with X number of candidates, each first place vote on a ballot is worth X points, each second place vote is worth X-1 votes, each third place vote is worth X-2 votes and so on. The last place vote on the ballot is worth one point. The points are added up and the candidate with the most points at the end of the day is elected.

Let’s look at this hypothetical example. Riding X has 18,000 voters:

7000 voters rank the PCs first, the Liberals second and the NDP third.

6000 voters rank the Liberals first, the NDP second and the PCs third.

5000 voters rank the NDP first, the Liberals second and the PCs third.

In our current system the PCs win the seat with 38 per cent of the vote (7,000/18,000) even though 11,000 voters ranked them in last place!

In a Borda count system, the results are more fair.

The PCs get: (7,000×3) + (6,000×1) + (5,000×1) = 32,000 points.

The Liberals get: (7,000×2) + (6,000×3) + (5,000×2) = 42,000 points.

The NDP get: (7,000×1) + (6,000×2) + (5,000×1) = 24,000 points.

With the Borda system, the Liberals win the seat by a wide margin and all 18,000 voters get a MLA that was either their first or second choice. This system gives the majority their due.

Condorcet system

The Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet was a French philosopher during the Enlightenment. He was not a fan of the plurality system either. “The apparent will of the plurality may in fact be the complete opposite of their true will.”

Condorcet’s system of voting gives meaningful results when comparisons of all the candidates in pairs are considered. Think of it as a round robin tournament for elections -‑ each choice faces the other choices in head-to-head competition. The votes again rank their candidates in order of preference.

Using this hypothetical example, we again suppose that riding X has 18,000 voters:

7,000 voters rank the PCs first, the Liberals second and the NDP third.

6,000 voters rank the Liberals first, the NDP second and the PCs third.

5,000 voters rank the NDP first, the Liberals second and the PCs third.

Here are the results

The PCs lose to the Liberals 7,000 to 11,000. (11,000 voters ranked the Liberals higher than the PCs)

The PCs lose to the NDP 7,000 to 11,000. (11,000 voters ranked the NDP higher than the PCs)

The NDP loses to the Liberals 13,000 to 5,000. (13,000 voters ranked the Liberals higher than the NDP)

This would elect the Liberals, showing that the Liberals beat the PCs one-on-one and that they beat the NDP one-on-one. The major drawback to this method is that in not all cases will one party win each matchup. For those situations, the Copeland rule comes into effect. Basically, it looks at each party’s win-loss record and chooses the party with the best winning percentage.

In the unlikely event of a total tie, that is that no party can beat more parties than any other party, a simple Borda count would be used.

Approval voting

My personal preference for a voting system is the approval voting system, which is based on positive choices and ensures the election does not result in someone who the majority opposes being elected.

Each voter is given a ballot with all those running for election in their riding. Beside each name there are two boxes, yes and no. Voters choose whether or not they approve of each candidate. Every box with yes ticked is a vote for that candidate. Every box with no ticked is not a vote for that candidate. The candidate who gets the most votes wins the election.

Approval voting is a simple system that allows all voters the opportunity to get a say on each candidate. It would work to reduce negative campaigning as candidates need voters to choose yes for them, rather than trying to convince them not to vote for someone else. It would also prevent candidates from being spoilers and siphoning votes off from the candidates with a legitimate chance to win.

Conclusion

Voting should be fair. The results should accurately reflect what the electorate thinks. And our current system is the worst system for doing that. If we support the system, we’re giving it our approval. I can’t do that and I don’t think you should either.

There are no candidates who support these changes. It makes sense, since they can win now without the change. When is the last time you heard a politician talk about a Borda system or a Condorcet winner?

The more people who refuse to vote, the less legitimate an election becomes. When election participation drops into the 30 per cent range, it will force the discussion about our system.

Until then, I am happy to not vote. It’s not like it will give the proper result anyway.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Market to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.